On Monday 19 December 2011 10:29 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
Oh wait, when I saw 3/3 I realized the following too:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Aneesh V<[email protected]> wrote:
+- phy-type : string indicating the phy type. Should be one of the
+ following:
+
+ "phy-type-omap4" : PHY used in OMAP4 family of SoCs
+
+ "phy-type-dm81xx" : PHY used in DM81XX family of SoCs
No, again please don't define new string properties when a simple
binary property will do just fine. Just use "phy-type-omap4" or
"phy-type-dm81xx" as an empty property to indicate what phy is used.
Or encode as an integer and list the valid values here.
Ok. I just got carried away by readability. Somebody told me that
something like #define will come to device-tree soon. Probably, I can
use that then.
Is binary property suitable in situations like this where "one and only
one" phy-type should be specified by the user?
Every time you add a string to the device tree, the data structure
grows, not to mention the fact that it adds a lot of string
comparisons during setup. Please keep that in mind when defining
bindings.
Understand.
Thanks,
Aneesh
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
